ADDED: Wait. Cloutier originated the quote "Slut Shaming Is Okay When Feminists Do It." Instapundit added: "Don't be silly. Everything is okay when feminists do it."

Personally, I wouldn't concede that those people are feminists, but I can anticipate the pushback I'll get for trying to rescue the word from those who would abuse it. I know some of you don't think that effort is worth anything. But I do.

91 comments:

I never understood the connections that people make with social conservative politics - For example, I'm pretty outspokenly pro-gay marriage, and pretty outspokenly anti-abortion. For some reason, people who have heard my take on one of those will tiptoe around me on the other, because they assume that my stance would "match" for some reason. As if they're in any way related.

I can assure you that all of my arguments for and against those things are completely unrelated.

AA: I wouldn't concede that those people are feminists, but I can anticipate the pushback I'll get for trying to rescue the word from those who would abuse it. I know some of you don't think that effort is worth anything. But I do.

I try to say "feminists" (with the quotes) or so-called feminists. It's an uphill battle, though. So much of what passes for "feminism" is incredibly demeaning and harmful to women and equality. Thanks for fighting that fight, Professor.

I can't count how many "feminists" I saw tell me that Sarah Palin needs to be with her kids, and that Bristol was a "slut" or "whore" (their actual words).

I can anticipate the pushback I'll get for trying to rescue the word from those who would abuse it. I know some of you don't think that effort is worth anything. But I do.

If "the word" is feminist, you're 14 years too late.

I was raised on feminist lectures about sexual discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace. Then I watched as "feminists" betrayed all their principles in exchange for a veto of a partial birth abortion bill. I listened in shock as "feminist" leaders presented the "one free grope" rule to protect their poster boy.

I think even you were caught up in it. Didn't they have you sign a petition of 100 Consitutional Law Professors claiming that perjury wasn't a high crime? And then they changed the cover letter on you, changing the meaning of the petition. I forget the exact details, and I think you only mentioned it once, complaining that you had been used.

Would be interested in hearing more detail when you have time.

But sorry, my experience with feminism has not been yours. They are the reason I came up with Fen's Law: the Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about.

Professor. It is not the way the human mind works, indeed. But for some reason the screechy left has more than its fair share of unattractive women. Some of it appears to be resolute, a signal that their lack of care for appearance demonstrates their solidarity with the unwashed. Or something. On the whole conservative women are better dressed, groomed and articulate. Especially southern conservative women.

I can't decide whether or not I think the "feminist" label is worth saving. It's become synonymous with being a knee-jerk hysteric. That's especially embarrassing considering that that's the stereotype women were originally fighting against.

"This idea that good looking equals stupid or undeserving... it's not the way the human mind works! "

-- Isn't she blonde? Maybe they're trying to go with blondes are dumb. Also, she was a waitress. We know servers are dumb. That's the whole push, isn't it? She was a pretty face designed to part men from their money with cleavage and legs. Therefore, her argument is invalid. We all know waitresses never have anything smart to say!

Conservative women used to have this stereotypical look that was overgroomed and pageant-y. It was severely unhip and seemed sexually repressed.

Liberals got complacent about the ease of mocking that.

It's no longer the situation. The Sarah Palin type of conservative female look is more common now. Lots of casual long hair and natural makeup... really it's more like the way liberal women looked in the 1970s.

As unattractive women... there are plenty of them everywhere and plenty of unattractive men. It's a subjective judgment who's got the most of them.

I think they just want to do basic politics, ruin effective surrogates so that the primary/top of the ticket is forced to do more heavy lifting. She's fairly effective and likeable, so, they decided no one thinks highly of Hooters girls, so they used that to ruin her.

"As unattractive women... there are plenty of them everywhere and plenty of unattractive men. It's a subjective judgment who's got the most of them."

Liberals are definitely homelier on average. That's one of the reasons they turn leftward...they're mad at the world and turn to radical egalitarianism in an effort to try and erase the intrinsic lower social value that comes with being physically unattractive.

Huh. I'm an Asian guy and people assume I'm good at math. Not sure which of us has it worse.

Can't you use your ninja skills to silence them, though? :P

In the end, she is a "hypocrite" because she doesn't abide by the stereotypes people who loathe her have laid out for her.

And it's always a one-way street.

Newt cheats on his wife and he's a loathesome hypocrite. But John Edwards, whose career was based on him being married to his unattractive (physically, and acording to reports, in all other manners as well) wife, cheats and it's not really a sign that he's a hypocrite or anything.

And, professor, "Feminism" is effectively dead as a word. Few buy it and women I know are considerably more hostile to it than I am. I take it now like I take Confederate flag sympathizers --- yeah, for some of them, it is a symbol of their heritage. But they had decades to stand up and criticize racist groups for using it. They stayed silent and that was that.

When feminism went from claims of equality to "men are evil" and "hetero sex is rape" and the like, "feminists" who stayed silent allowed the movement to be killed.

Like Fen, I remember my Women's Studies courses I was forced to attend in college. Was kicked out of class for laughing at the professor who claimed that "The only reason men marry women with daughters is to sleep with their daughters".

What I find curious is this strange view of Hooters. Sure the costumes are tiny and tight but far more skin gets shown on the average American beach during summer. Or in American magazines displaying said skin on beach in summer.

Last time I was a Hooters I had a good time. The food was decent and the waitress a nice girl. I enjoyed my lunch, enjoyed the scenery without being some drooling creepy asshole and left a nice 30% cash tip.

LOL, talk about stereotyping an entire gender. Maybe you need to get out and meet more women. There are plenty of beautiful women on all sides of the political divide - if we can call it that.

BTW I live in CA and most of the women I see daily [on or off the beaches] are very beautiful and well 'groomed' and, for the record, CA is a fairly liberal place. So draw your conclusions. But, yes, Southern women can be attractive too. But it's not their political beliefs that make them so.

Professor, "feminist" is beyond rescue because the word is not being abused. It means what it means today. You are in a small minority of those who want to call themselves feminists. Amanda Marcotte thinks *you* are abusing the word by not agreeing in lockstep with her.

Me, I'm more of a Kaus-ian social egalitarian. I believe in actual equality, not the "feminist" all-rights, no-consequences kind.

a plasticized form of unnatural sexiness designed to arouse menwhile simultaneously believing that women should be forced to face the "consequences" of actually giving into to their sexual desires

I've seen this from "feminists" a lot - the attitude that looking "sexy" but recognizing that sex is something serious that shouldn't necessarily be entered into lightly is somehow horribly hypocritical.

I can never square that one with "just because a woman wears a short skirt doesn't mean that she's easy."

Maybe she figured it out. You get a 30% tip when you schlep the food at Hooters compared to a meager 10% elsewhere.

In college, I trained new servers at a family steakhouse located in an area with a lot of other casual dining chains, including a Hooters. Occasionally, I got to train girls who's previous experience was there. I learned two things: 1) they put up with a lot of really crappy sexual harrassment, from customers and patrons alike, and 2) they made several hundred dollars in tips on a normal night (at my restuarant, a good server was still lucky to break a hundred on a very busy night).

They always told me how awful Hooters was, but they never stuck around long at our place - how could they take the pay cut?

The Jezebel.com website that posted her photo questions how Matthews can square her work for an organization that clearly markets sexuality with her longtime war on Planned Parenthood and, well, all those traditional Republican values.

Out of curiosity, when did Republicans come out AGAINST sex? I must have missed that part of the platform.

And, apparently, if you have tits you have yo support Planned Parenthood. Enough of that independent thought, ladies!!

Why are Progressives such utter prudes when it comes to female sexuality? Are they afraid of breasts or something?

Well, she may have a point. What makes news is not always easy to pinpoint. But as we say in the biz: You know it when you see it. And with a recall election looming in which she will often be front-and-center as Walker battles to keep his job, details that might otherwise be ignored become interesting.

I can never square that one with "just because a woman wears a short skirt doesn't mean that she's easy."

Lyssa, you forgot the new addendum:

"Unless she's conservative and works at Hooters".

Then, CLEARLY, she's an epic ho. Or something.

Of course, I've never been to Hooters. Doubt I will now either as it'd be really awkward to look at another woman's boobs with my wife around and I don't go out to eat without bringing the family with me and all.

I can't decide whether or not I think the "feminist" label is worth saving. It's become synonymous with being a knee-jerk hysteric. That's especially embarrassing considering that that's the stereotype women were originally fighting against.

I know that at one point, Christina Hoff Summers of “Who Stole Feminism” fame suggest making a distinction between “gender feminism” and “equity feminism.” I think I understood the distinction that she was making but it seemed as fruitless as trying to resurrect the word “liberal” by explaining the difference between “classical liberal” and “modern liberal.”

At some point, I think debating the semantics of labels detracts from arguing on the basis of principles and policies and you end up like the poor lonely soul who thinks that it’s Oh So Important that no one refer to the United States as a “democracy” instead of a “republic.”

Do we need a new word? Anyone want to revivify "suffragette?"

I second Matthew Sablan’s motion – anything that brings more songs from classical Walt Disney movies back into our culture is a Good Thing. :)

BTW I live in CA and most of the women I see daily [on or off the beaches] are very beautiful and well 'groomed' and, for the record, CA is a fairly liberal place.

If you are anywhere near the beaches, you're far from the Central Valley or the Sierra foothills. CA, as a whole, is a "fairly liberal place," because most of the population is near the coast, and most of the coastal cities (San Diego maybe excepted) are pretty Lefty; but other parts aren't. They're not nearly so densely populated; still, they're a large part of the state, and possibly part of the reason that CA has had so many Republican governors.

And I you're missing out on the whole 1996 EEOC legal angle when Hooters itself claimed that these women are not waiting tables, they are "providing vicarious sexual recreation."

Do you really think that this is an issue worth dwelling on? If so do you think that conservatives in general are some sort of monolithic group of pearl-clutchers, soon to be lampooned in "Rock Of Ages" by none other than Catherine Zeta-Jones? Has nearly 10 years of South Park taught you nothing?

I got clued in during the Clinton years. Clarence Thomas tells an off-color joke, and that makes him unfit for public service. Bill Clinton performs numerous adulterous acts with numerous women-- no big deal. When you lay these cards on the table, the best liberals can come up with is that Thomas's blue joke shows him to be hypocritical, since he is trying to hold the line on public morality, while Democrats don't give a good goddamn about morality hence whatever Clinton did is AOK. To recap, liberals believe that hypocrisy, no matter how trivial, is a worse crime than adultery,no matter how serious. This is how they justify casting aspersions on Matthews for waiting tables while it's OK for Albert Gore to rape a masseuse. It's just par for the course if you're a Democrat.

Some of it appears to be resolute, a signal that their lack of care for appearance demonstrates their solidarity with the unwashed. Or something.

The something is distain for all forms of makeup. I believe I could state their position on makeup to their satisfaction, if they really do have a position on makeup as I think so.

I know a woman who is allergic to lanolin. But she's allergic to everything. She's a very particular woman. Her allergies reflect loyally and accurately the state of her psychological delicacy and edginess. But she's not a good example for this so I don't know why I automatically think of her. She uses makeup, but with her light complexion, and I mean light light light complexion, she glows in the dark, actually, she's a fantastic nightlight, that even a feather-light touches of wisps of makeup can appear clownish on her, so she avoids them for that, but not always, like for work and for evening dates and for going to the store and for walking to the front to get the newspaper, or the kitchen to get a drink of water. She's totally feminist. She has to be. She didn't have a choice in that, it's the hand life dealt her.

John Edwards, whose career was based on him being married to his unattractive wife

His political career got started because he stayed in touch with the moral values of the blue collar mill workers his dad observed from his management perch, even after he (JE) got so rich bankrupting doctors with junk science and voodoo he could build a house with an indoor barbeque pit filled with $100 bills.

His presidential run was based on being married to a woman who wasn't nearly as pretty as he was (and who had cancer).

Well, she may have a point. What makes news is not always easy to pinpoint. But as we say in the biz: You know it when you see it. And with a recall election looming in which she will often be front-and-center as Walker battles to keep his job . . ."

There's no hypocrisy involved in being a Hooter's girl (or even doing more than wear skimpy outfits) and being anti-abortion.

True enough, the journalists know news when they see it, but it's not the disconnect involved at having a job at Hooters and having conservative views... it's the indication of social strata involved. Working at Hooters is like moving into a trailer park and wearing big hair *on purpose*.

OTOH, the reaction of nearly all conservatives is going to be, "cute girl."

I read somewhere that Andrea Dworkin loved Hooter's food! But after menopause, she lost all that hormonal protection against heart disease. It was all downhill from there. She tried to take Hooters down with her but her heart wasn't in it.

I suspect that as an attractive college girl in Vegas, working at hooters is one of the more respectable jobs she could find. She certainly could have done a lot worse, and made a lot more money doing it.

>>>>Working at Hooters is like moving into a trailer park and wearing big hair *on purpose*.

Right.. for the purpose of taking home a couple hundred in tips every night.

And women go into dead end womyn studies and let their hair frizz uncontrollably "on purpose" too. To signal that they are more intelligent than those around them. Hmmm, that would be termed a false signal.

> Conservative women used to have this stereotypical look that was overgroomed and pageant-y. It was severely unhip and seemed sexually repressed.

Why do you think that clothing and/or "groom"ing predictes "sexually repressed" or its opposite for women? Books? Real world experience? Unfounded stereotyping?

My experience is that clothing and the like were basically useless as predictors, except perhaps for crazy (which didn't correlate with sexual repression). Assuming that clothing didn't have that meaning was something of an advantage.

I never understood the connections that people make with social conservative politics - For example, I'm pretty outspokenly pro-gay marriage, and pretty outspokenly anti-abortion. For some reason, people who have heard my take on one of those will tiptoe around me on the other, because they assume that my stance would "match" for some reason. As if they're in any way related.

People on the right who support abortion, or homosexuality, do so under libertarian theories. Ann Althouse would be an example of that. And if libertarians recognize the baby's humanity, they might be opposed to abortion. Ron Paul is an example of that.

But libertarian theory does not explain the left! They don't believe in liberty. They don't believe in small government. And yet many on the left favor homosexuality and favor abortion rights.

So, if leftists are not libertarians who want to increase liberty (and I see little evidence of that!), what's going on? Why do so many people on the left favor abortion rights and favor homosexuality? If it's not a libertarian mindset that accounts for these positions, what does?

I would suggest it's because the left is hostile to human reproduction and wants to limit it. And a whole host of belief systems--in regard to birth control, abortion, and homosexuality--flow out of this mindset.

Why do we teach sex education in the schools? Not to educate our children about human sexuality, but to indoctrinate them about the use of birth control.

And I like birth control. I'm a libertarian, I like options. But since people on the left are not libertarian, I see them as having ulterior motives.

For instance, Justice Ginsburg's slip that Roe v. Wade is about population control. Nothing libertarian about that! That is the ugly and autocratic vision of a central planner who wants to limit human reproduction.

But why does the left want to limit human reproduction? What's bad about humanity?

Well, the left is environmentalist, which means it's hostile to development of our resources. More people means we need more housing, more food, more energy. More, more, more! The left hates that. So it encourages homosexuality and abortion.

Also the left feels that more people leads to more unemployment and misery on the planet. We will all be poorer. Economically speaking, the left believes in dividing up resources. More people equals less stuff for us.

The left does not believe that we can "grow the pie." The left does not believe that more babies will create more jobs, find more cures for diseases, or improve the world.

The left thinks humanity is bad. That's why it needs to be controlled, including human reproduction. That's my theory, anyway.

"Seriously, why the fixation with hypocrisy on the Left? I mean, the easy way to not be a hypocrite is to have no moral standards AT ALL. Is that really what they want to encourage?"

-- Because everyone knows hypocrites are bad, and it lets you get a two-fer. You can show someone you don't like is not living up to their ideals, and you can mock those ideals as useless and stupid at the same time.

I bet Ciara, as a young college student, knew that Hooters was a popular restaurant among conservative Republican voters and that job would put her on the path to working for them politically in the future. Yea. That's it.